https://gcs2.org/standings/completed-brackets/1/
Out of total 75 games(excluding DevM vs VonIvan bugsplat),
OKW : SOV = 6:10
OKW : UKF = 7:1
OKW : USF = 3:2
OST : SOV = 15:11
OST : UKF = 2:0
OST : USF = 10:8
GCS2 Barbarossa faction win rate
18 Jun 2018, 05:18 AM
#1
Posts: 70
18 Jun 2018, 05:43 AM
#2
Posts: 1930
*in before people claiming how the win rate doesn't prove OST is the best faction in the game and how UKF is not the worst faction in the game*
18 Jun 2018, 06:48 AM
#3
Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6
*in before people claiming how the win rate doesn't prove OST is the best faction in the game and how UKF is not the worst faction in the game*
If we're talking proof we're talking about proper sample size and 27 games isn't.
18 Jun 2018, 07:16 AM
#4
Posts: 2458 | Subs: 1
UKF won a game? WOW
18 Jun 2018, 07:21 AM
#5
1 
Posts: 2439 | Subs: 6
So in conclusion we have four viable factions... and brits. I'll take it.
It's funny that there were originally set to be more nerfs for brits in the original balance preview notes. Is it a case of team game balancing affecting 1v1 meta to the point where we now don't have 5 factions?
It's funny that there were originally set to be more nerfs for brits in the original balance preview notes. Is it a case of team game balancing affecting 1v1 meta to the point where we now don't have 5 factions?
Master League - CoH's tournament player ranking system.
GCS2.ORG - All info on the fan funded mega tourney I organised.
YouTube.com/AECoH - casts, analysis, and tournament gameplay.
GCS2.ORG - All info on the fan funded mega tourney I organised.
YouTube.com/AECoH - casts, analysis, and tournament gameplay.
18 Jun 2018, 07:25 AM
#6
Posts: 951
Hilariously, in statistics, anything with a sample size over 30 counts as a "large sample size" (due to the formula that is used to test sample parameters).
I, for one, trust that GCS2 statistics reflect balance a lot better than, say, games on ladder, even ladder games between the same exact players.
Brits seem pretty weak. WM seem pretty strong. But I would say that as GCS2 goes on (assuming we play on the same patch) we will have a clearer and clearer picture of faction balance.
I, for one, trust that GCS2 statistics reflect balance a lot better than, say, games on ladder, even ladder games between the same exact players.
Brits seem pretty weak. WM seem pretty strong. But I would say that as GCS2 goes on (assuming we play on the same patch) we will have a clearer and clearer picture of faction balance.
NON VOS TURBATIS
18 Jun 2018, 07:32 AM
#7
Posts: 2458 | Subs: 1
So in conclusion we have four viable factions... and brits. I'll take it.
It's funny that there were originally set to be more nerfs for brits in the original balance preview notes. Is it a case of team game balancing affecting 1v1 meta to the point where we now don't have 5 factions?
No. Some people in the balance team just think all the good things UKF have need to be nerfed while not compensating for their weaknesses. Still no snares or decent indirect fire while all the crutch units got nerfed. The main problem is that most of their OP stuff was nerfed so hard that it has ended up being way UP.
Brits are better in team games compared to 1v1, but far from OP. Ost has an easy time cheesing Brits out of games in 2v2 too, just like 1v1. UKF is still strong vs OKW in 2v2+ though.
18 Jun 2018, 09:49 AM
#8
Posts: 5441 | Subs: 36
Yup, brits are ok/fine vs okw, but wehrmacht just eats brits now to breakfast 
. Does no matter if 1vs1 or 4vs4.
About we will see only wehrmacht and mobile defend--> Nope we saw alot of OKW as well.
. Does no matter if 1vs1 or 4vs4.About we will see only wehrmacht and mobile defend--> Nope we saw alot of OKW as well.
18 Jun 2018, 09:52 AM
#9
Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1
Not sure if one day we will have enough sample to decide if Brit is UP or not since nobody is going to play them anymore...
18 Jun 2018, 09:56 AM
#10
Posts: 133 | Subs: 7
I just want to thank the balance team for implementing the much needed UKF nerfs. The Centaur and UC nerf has brought them back in line where they belong -- and let's not forget the overpowered bren! It's just a shame the other proposed nerfs to them didn't get implemented, so that we could have made them literally useless.
18 Jun 2018, 11:00 AM
#11
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
So in conclusion we have four viable factions... and brits. I'll take it.
It's funny that there were originally set to be more nerfs for brits in the original balance preview notes. Is it a case of team game balancing affecting 1v1 meta to the point where we now don't have 5 factions?
Collective whine of 4v4 rank 2000 one faction heroes leads to not only removal factions meta from 1s and 2s, but the faction itself, yes.
Brits have one massive meta disadvantage in not having at nade/faust equivalent, but their core army is being nerf batted over and over again to the point where they are just another faction, but with less tools and the ones that are there are at the very best comparable.
Massive disadvantage, nerfs based on whines, excelling nowhere, that all is a recipe for failed faction balance.
Maybe it's 'cause the Axis players aren't a bunch of forum crybabies, and they keep their cool and fight the uphill battle, unlike some of their "allied" counterparts.
18 Jun 2018, 12:28 PM
#12
Posts: 138
I posted for a good couple of weeks that the changes would make brits UP, noone really listened. It's the classic relic overnerf all over again (see comet for a prime example)
The only crutches they had were Brens, AEC snareshot, AT boys and Centaur which made them competitive. These crutches were balanced by the fact UKF lack everything else like main inf snare, mortar, engie flamers and need a lot of investment in upgrades for tommies.
Guess what happens when you remove all these perks the faction has and only give them a 10fuel discount on the cromwell and a few gimmicky commander abilities in return? You get a weak faction that is "in line" with other factions but crucially lacks the basic tools other factions have at their disposal.
The only crutches they had were Brens, AEC snareshot, AT boys and Centaur which made them competitive. These crutches were balanced by the fact UKF lack everything else like main inf snare, mortar, engie flamers and need a lot of investment in upgrades for tommies.
Guess what happens when you remove all these perks the faction has and only give them a 10fuel discount on the cromwell and a few gimmicky commander abilities in return? You get a weak faction that is "in line" with other factions but crucially lacks the basic tools other factions have at their disposal.
19 Jun 2018, 17:00 PM
#13
Posts: 20
Like I said, UKF is a terrible faction, from 1vs1 to 4vs4, they just drag their worthless carcasses across the field only to vet the enemies, they have terrible squishy emplacements, they don't have nade/snare and get rolled over by everything with more than one wheel. They are complete garbage and who said they were fine/balanced should/kinda eat shit.
19 Jun 2018, 18:42 PM
#14
Posts: 1002 | Subs: 2
I'm interested in the context: who played each faction?
Generally, you would assume that whoever has the higher seed would win and get a W for their faction, so if all of the high seeds are playing ostheer, you would assume ostheer would have higher win rates.
If I recall, every semi finalist played ostheer and soviets (with vonivan having that one OKW game).
For the really concerning 7:1 okw vs ukf matchup, I would assume that its a mix of UKF's balance state, small sample size, and possibly lower seeds playing UKF. I know personally that my first round opponent played UKF for two games.
Generally, you would assume that whoever has the higher seed would win and get a W for their faction, so if all of the high seeds are playing ostheer, you would assume ostheer would have higher win rates.
If I recall, every semi finalist played ostheer and soviets (with vonivan having that one OKW game).
For the really concerning 7:1 okw vs ukf matchup, I would assume that its a mix of UKF's balance state, small sample size, and possibly lower seeds playing UKF. I know personally that my first round opponent played UKF for two games.
19 Jun 2018, 18:53 PM
#15
Posts: 587
I'm interested in the context: who played each faction?
Generally, you would assume that whoever has the higher seed would win and get a W for their faction, so if all of the high seeds are playing ostheer, you would assume ostheer would have higher win rates.
If I recall, every semi finalist played ostheer and soviets (with vonivan having that one OKW game).
For the really concerning 7:1 okw vs ukf matchup, I would assume that its a mix of UKF's balance state, small sample size, and possibly lower seeds playing UKF. I know personally that my first round opponent played UKF for two games.
That raises an interesting point, is a weak UK show becuase it's actually weak or does nobody good play UK because they think it weak and therefor creating a weak show?
Being bad at the game isn't something balance patches can fix.
19 Jun 2018, 19:47 PM
#16
Posts: 1221 | Subs: 41
That raises an interesting point, is a weak UK show becuase it's actually weak or does nobody good play UK because they think it weak and therefor creating a weak show?
Luvnest played Brits on a very good map for Brits (crossing in the woods) against Talisman's OKW and lost.
Refero (#1 Brit on ladder) played 3 games as Brits against CreativeName's OST(1 game) and Noggano OKW(2 games) and lost all of them.
Must be the players and not the faction.
19 Jun 2018, 21:54 PM
#17
Posts: 808
brits are a team game faction, ther just pathetic in 1v1
19 Jun 2018, 22:02 PM
#18
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
brits are a team game faction, ther just pathetic in 1v1
Brits are pretty bad in team games as well - they were supposed to be allied late game faction, but that late game was removed from the game with last 3 community balance patches.
Maybe it's 'cause the Axis players aren't a bunch of forum crybabies, and they keep their cool and fight the uphill battle, unlike some of their "allied" counterparts.
19 Jun 2018, 22:04 PM
#19
Posts: 4183 | Subs: 4
Luvnest played Brits on a very good map for Brits (crossing in the woods) against Talisman's OKW and lost.
Refero (#1 Brit on ladder) played 3 games as Brits against CreativeName's OST(1 game) and Noggano OKW(2 games) and lost all of them.
Must be the players and not the faction.
All in the quali tourney? If so then obviously the stats in OP are incorrect. Which then nullifies all of his information.
I also don't have a doubt that brits are in a poor position currently though. But that position seems to only be poor vs Ostheer. OKW seems to struggle significantly more vs brits than ostheer.
19 Jun 2018, 22:11 PM
#20
Posts: 1002 | Subs: 2
Luvnest played Brits on a very good map for Brits (crossing in the woods) against Talisman's OKW and lost.
Refero (#1 Brit on ladder) played 3 games as Brits against CreativeName's OST(1 game) and Noggano OKW(2 games) and lost all of them.
Must be the players and not the faction.
Don't have luvnest pegged as a brit player (does he play brits?), and considering talisman's overall performance this quali, I don't think tali's okw beating luvnest's brits is really unexpected. To be even more blunt, Luvnest just hasn't looked like the player his name would usually imply.
Refero losing to ost you could probably easily attribute to UKF just getting destroyed by ost. Refero losing to Noganno's OKW is again something that people probably wouldn't call out of the ordinary.
Point is, I don't think any of those results are really out of the ordinary.
1 user is browsing this thread:
1 guest
Livestreams
 |
|
|
24 | ||
|
|
|
|
7 | ||
 |
|
|
2 | ||
|
|
|
|
2 | ||
 |
|
|
1 | ||
 |
|
|
1 | ||
|
|
|
|
1 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.831222.789+37
- 2.34957.860+14
- 3.1109614.644+10
- 4.608220.734+2
- 5.276108.719+27
- 6.306114.729+2
- 7.916405.693-2
- 8.722440.621+4
- 9.261137.656+2
- 10.1041674.607-2
Data provided by
Relic Entertainment
Relic Entertainment
Replay highlight
VS
-
cblanco ★ -
보드카 중대
-
VonManteuffel -
Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
9
Download
1235